New "Ancient Empires" PBEM created

[Straybow]

Originally posted by SlowThinker
Except it doesn't work next turn. The barter was obsolete.
A barter would work from a Minoan save only.

Obsolete? But the unit only appeared on my turn, so he would have to make it from my save...

I dunno about the technicalities of Civ2Dip. I guess it only looks at turn number, not at civ position within the turn.

[SlowThinker]

Yes, if you play in a MP mode against 6 AIs then you get the wrath barbs. The question is how is this different from our PBEM?

Maybe we don't get them because Straybow (white player) is not an AI ... Maybe if we sack him...

[RobRoy]

Originally posted by Kull
Bugged from the get-go. I think it's something about the internet game that kills 'em. The Wrath Hex-edit just reverts back to "Prince" or something. Although I don't believe we ever tested to see if we could revert it to Wrath and have it STAY there. If you are willing to test that out, it would be nice info to have.

I double checked. As Straybow and Slo said, the barbarian activity bit still seems to be set to wrath level. So either the internet nature of the game or some other dynamic is preventing "wrath" from working. It might be worth trying to set it back to "Ragining Hordes" level to see if you can at least generate SOME barbarians in a PBEM format. But whatever is preventing "wrath" from working might still be at play. Do you know if anyone ever did any other monkeying with the save files? It's not something I would recommend, in general.

It's possible that the simple expedient of using .net saves for PBEMs (rather than hotseat format), yet playing them as single session solitaire games, is sufficient to allow anomolies to enter the game.

Originally posted by Kull
Better yet, we should give you the last save game and let you hex-edit in about five massive 100+ each Barbarian hordes - but make 'em the full deal, including Scythians, Desert Tribes, C4s, Iron Infantry, Horsearchers, etc.

If you're serious, I could try to think of something that could be implemented. But as much as I (or anyone) could try to be an honest broker, could I ever truly be "fair". Five huge stacks, evenly distributed wouldn't be "fair" (might be fun, though). You'd need to throw in some pirates (Sea Peoples, I believe), but their threat is not simply the strength of their few units but the frequency with which they appear (or should appear). So you'd need to be talking about an ongoing system. Even the game system's barbarians wouldn't ever really be "fair", but they would appear randomly, which is really just as good (at least people won't complain so much about the lack of fairness of something that is random)

If I could mirror your game in single player mode, several turns ahead, I might be able note where/when barbarians would appear. I could then notify y'all on those turns, intercept the game after the Minoan turn, add 'em in, and give the game to the Hittites. It wouldn't be perfect because the location of cities/units would have diverged a bit, influencing exactly where the barbarians should've appeared (but not when, I think), but it'd be reasonably close. And you'd get A random factor in both time and place.

Something to thing about. Let me know if you really want me to pursue something like this, because I think it would be safer to insert units via the cheat menu (which might require saving as a .sav file first, then as a .net file, which might have unforseen consequences). The event file could also be a possibility (strip it out, add a tailored barbie event file, restrip, then reinsert the original file). But I'm not sure you can add that many units via events.

BTW, I did some quick checking, and if you continue in single player mode, you do get barbies fairly quickly from your game. (I wonder if it's something as simple as some sort of counter that keeps getting reset to 1). But you get Swordsmen and Horsemen now, instead of Bronze Infantry and Battering Rams, without someone owning the Industrialization/Assyrian tech. Maybe you should give that to Mitanni, whatever else you may do with them.

Also I think Chariot 2s may appear briefly, before Sea Peoples appear, as the pirate barbies, but never C4s IIRC. And I don't think Scythians or Dessert Raiders ever appear as part of in-game barbarian system. I'd have to dig out "The Barbarian Paper" and check the unit slots to be sure, though. The Scythians and Dessert Raiders will appear via event in the PBEM event file, but very rarely, I think. Have either made an appearance in the game? There's no reason they shouldn't, other than their low probability.

But let me know if you want to consider something like this seriously. Straybow, for one, seems hesitant. And looking back at some of the earlier messages in the thread, it looks like some of the original players may also have been hesitant.

[SlowThinker]

Originally posted by RobRoy
But let me know if you want to consider something like this seriously. Straybow, for one, seems hesitant. And looking back at some of the earlier messages in the thread, it looks like some of the original players may also have been hesitant.

Frankly said, I am not very happy with the idea. We have a game, we have plans and ideas. And the game would change widely, and we would have to abandon our plans and create new ones. Actually we would start a new game.

Edit:
For example now the game is interesting also because you have to build a balanced army. The army should be as small as possible (in order to put maximum resources in economy), but it should be large enough to satisfy your needs. The size of your army size affects your diplomacy and the diplomacy is more complicated.
With the wrath we would have to hold enormous armies, the world would be simpler.

[Kull]

Here's the thing. Everybody here signed up for the "Barbarian Wrath" PBEM game. And for some reason, what we have instead is the no-Barbarians Game. Actually we have something worse. We have the Barbarian EXPLOIT game in which the single city allocated to the Barbarians - which was only done in order to ensure that their vast hordes weren't wiped off the map by a change terrain event - instead serves as a giant cash machine. On one level I don't have a problem with that, since in many ways it simulates trade with the Far East, sort of like an early Silk Road. But I would never have put it in the game if that was ALL it was doing!

The biggest problem is the utter absence of what makes Barbarian Wrath such an interesting concept to begin with. It adds uncertainty to the game. And not the kind of uncertainty that comes from having sketchy neighbors, but the kind which says even mighty empires like Hatti, Babylon, and Egypt can be seriously damaged by unexpected attacks from unheard of peoples pouring in from the desert or the mountains.

The single-player Wrath System exploits Civ2's spawn engine, but it's not truly optimal. What WOULD be optimal are Barbarian Invasions crafted by the mind of a human, one that includes all units spawned at one time. And not just the basics, either, but truly frightening hordes led by powerful units like the Scythians. That way you don't need a 100 unit horde, but rather a much smaller but utterly deadly force that absolutely has the speed and power to sweep in and grab some of your cities, almost no matter what you do.

I think that would be awesome! And certainly much more fun than blustery emails between empires that would really much rather trade than conquer anyway.

[SlowThinker]

I edited my last post.

Originally posted by Kull
We have the Barbarian EXPLOIT game in which the single city allocated to the Barbarians - which was only done in order to ensure that their vast hordes weren't wiped off the map by a change terrain event - instead serves as a giant cash machine.

Without a harbor Central Asia would stay at size 2.
I supposed the harbor balanced the Persian culture tech, which imposed a large disavantage to Persian civ.

BTW, nobody downloaded my save ... did you notice it?

[Kull]

Border with Babylon

The Euphrates Zone Borders between Egypt and Babylon are attached. Babylonian units may not position themselves on or within the western-most red lines, and Egyptian units may likewise not enter the eastern ones. The white dots indicate territory which is equidistant between Babylonian cities and Egyptian ones. This is no-man's land. Units from either side may travel there, but must not end their turns in those spaces.

[Peaster]

Originally posted by SlowThinker
I supposed the harbor balanced the Persian culture tech, which imposed a large disavantage to Persian civ.

This was also my assumption. AND Persia has a severe shortage of grassland, which has kept our population stats in the basement throughout the game. Though maybe all the northern countries share that problem to some extent.

I don't really want to get into the Bab-Egypt conflict (unless 3rd party moderation is needed). But I am curious - was there some prior agreement about borders ? I think Babs said so, but am not sure what Egypt says.

[Kull]

Egyptian Forces continue their westward movement.

[Kull]

Originally posted by Peaster I don't really want to get into the Bab-Egypt conflict (unless 3rd party moderation is needed). But I am curious - was there some prior agreement about borders ? I think Babs said so, but am not sure what Egypt says.

There was a gentleman's agreement, based entirely upon Egypt's belief in Babylonian goodwill. As there is no good will, there is no agreement. Each side shall now keep their "equidistance".

[RobRoy]

Originally posted by Kull
Actually we have something worse. We have the Barbarian EXPLOIT game in which the single city allocated to the Barbarians...instead serves as a giant cash machine.

Well, Barbarian Wrath would probably lead players further down this road. More Barbie cities would likely lead to every civ arranging to keep pet, virtually captive, barbarian cities with which to trade. They generally grow faster and are more profitable. Plus they are an effective buffer against other barbarians. I always perceived this as desirable, though, not a problem.

Originally posted by SlowThinker
I supposed the harbor balanced the Persian culture tech, which imposed a large disavantage to Persian civ.

I'd also assumed that the city was intended to grow to a decent size to provide a potential trading partner for the Persians. The Invention/Persian tech not only limits their goody huts results, it also stunts their trade a bit, early on. To say nothing of their mediocre terrain...

Originally posted by Kull
...What WOULD be optimal are Barbarian Invasions crafted by the mind of a human, one that includes all units spawned at one time. And not just the basics, either, but truly frightening hordes led by powerful units like the Scythians. That way you don't need a 100 unit horde, but rather a much smaller but utterly deadly force that absolutely has the speed and power to sweep in and grab some of your cities, almost no matter what you do.

Well, most of my thoughts dealt with ways you could mimic Barbarian Wrath or otherwise try to get the spawned barbarians back into the game. But now you really are talking about something new and different.

But it's what I was wondering about in my "what are y'all planning to do with Mitanni" question. There's your opportunity to give a (potentially) human player a barbarian-like force and see what happens. Wouldn't be "fair", though, although various house rules could be imposed, I suppose, since anything in that direction would really have to be unanimous.

Maybe Kull should think about a SoG event file update using Test of Time. It's event file capacity and capabilities are leaps and bounds ahead of standard CivII. A graphics port was made recently by Techumseh, I believe, which works fine (barring a few lost river crossings - ToT doens't treat airbases as roads/railroads). Wrath level works in it too (different bit, though). Don't know if it'd have the same kind a PBEM bug making a no-barbarian game. But it might be the best vehicle if you're looking for a way to represent a more coherent barbarian challenge.

[Straybow]

For most of us CA is too far away to be practical. I sent a couple caravans that way... it will be a looooong time before there's a payoff. I guess I'll hafta rent a boat. I bet all the motels are really expensive, too.

Do we have a sub for kengel?

[Peaster]

On behalf of the caliphs of Central Asia, Sinbad warmly welcomes the wise merchants from Hattas and all other nations. We wish to insure that your rewards exceed your expenses. Hence we are willing to share in both. We insist on it! [Unless you are from Babylon and attempt to charge us for gilded camel combs]

Perhaps RobRoy could sub for Kengel ? If not, maybe we can ask Sparrowhawk ? Another player could do it, but I would prefer a 3rd party. Maybe Peasteress, if the Greek situation is not very complicated.

[SlowThinker]

Greek sub
We could wait for kengel if Peaster is slow.
Otherwise ... kengel didn't say who should sub, but so I supposed it should be the most firm civ - Stray or Zedd. I guess they know at least trade issues of Greece.
But if Peaster doesn't like it then it can be a neutral person.
BTW it looks now kengel wants to play Greeks at 55%. He said he prefered to continue to play but he wouldn't regret if we found a replacement. (Time he can devote to SOG is limited).
Maybe RobRoy and kengel could play collectively? RobRoy saw the map probably but it needn't be a problem since Greece is not in any conflict and is quite isolated.

Barbs and Mitannis
I won't veto a game change if all other players want it. But so far only Kull gave his opinion...

Barb wrath
Since also Hittites (white player) get barb wrath when playing single, it looks there is a counter that counts civs controlled by AI or civs processed from last save.
RobRoy could you test it? You could simulate only Babylonians play PBEM (6 civs controlled by AI), to save at end of turn, and load for next turn.
You could also simulate a gap of 5 civs controlled by AI - to play Assyrians and continue with Babs...
Also a missing/applied Ctrl-N may be the important.

Originally posted by RobRoy
The Invention/Persian tech not only limits their goody huts results, it also stunts their trade a bit, early on.

The invention halves the trade revenues. So for Persia there is only one trade partner - Central Asia (CA) (or cities of a similar size), but it acts rather like a city of size 4 (now CA reached its max size - 8).
CA can be used for trade with Babylon or Assyria, but it looks like a fair counterbalance to Mediterranean islands (and mainly Crete).

[RobRoy]

Originally posted by SlowThinker
Barb wrath
...it looks there is a counter that counts civs controlled by AI or civs processed from last save.
RobRoy could you test it? You could simulate only Babylonians play PBEM (6 civs controlled by AI), to save at end of turn, and load for next turn.
You could also simulate a gap of 5 civs controlled by AI - to play Assyrians and continue with Babs...
Also a missing/applied Ctrl-N may be the important.

Good News/Bad News, depending on one's perspective. After a few tests, I have a guess as to why Barbies aren't spawning at all. But if someone could confirm my assumptions, regarding your procedures, I could be more sure.

As I understand it, you all download the previous player's saved .net file. Then you load it into CivII, as a network or internet game, and play your turn. When you're finished, you hit ctrl-N, save a new .net file and upload it for the next player. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

This procedure is identical between the last player in a turn (Minoans) and the first player in the next turn (Hittites). So, NO ONE EVER ACTIVATES THE END OF TURN SEQUENCE? The Hittites just start their turn, which does indeed force the turn counter forward, but neither they nor the Minoans ever pressed "ENTER" or hit the blinking "End of Turn" message?

If this is the case, then I think you are either skipping the sequence in which the system determines whether/where to spawn a barbie horde. Or it might be that you are skipping the sequence in which a counter that is used in the barbie determination is incremented.

I started with Straybow's 2620 save. For several turns, I ctrl-Ned through the Hittites, Babs, Persians, Greeks, and Minoans just as I think y'all do now (Kull seems to think passwords do something besides inconvenience my testing, so the AI Egypt is now at war with Babylon and Mitanni is dead). But at the end of each turn, I did not simply have the Hittites pick up the Minoan save, I loaded both the Minoans and Hittites into an internet game, THEN HAD THE MINOANS PRESS "ENTER". The Minoans would then leave, the Hittites would do their turn (ctrl-N) and begin the cycle again. By game turn 2560 I had a huge horde outside Iconion.

Replicated the generals results a few time, though it was never again quite as early as 2560. The horde always appeared directed against the Hittites, reinforcing my belief that the system-generated barbies target human players (of which it would only see two - Hittites and Minoans).

Clearly this testing can't be viewed as definitive. The two full AI's (Egypt and Mitanni/Aramaeans) could be incrementing some other kind of counter. Also, my exiting process was usually only to the music screen (I was getting bored/impatient).

Now several obvious problems become apparent, assuming we can confirm, and assuming that you all agree that you WANT to reintroduce spawned barbies. One is that, either the Hittite player or the Minoan need to have two networked PCs. In any event they'll obviously see the other's entire positions. And both are likely to be unfairly targeted by barbies.

I suspect, however, that you can mitigate two of these problems by using .hot format instead. However, I seem to recall there were some very good reasons NOT to use hotseat format, but I'm drawing a blank as to what they were. Perhaps y'all remember? You'd still have one player seeing everything another player does. And switching formats mid-game could carry unknown risks, even though they seem to load into the other formats just fine.

One reminder, though, without someone having the Assyrian tech, the barbie horde is more of a nuisance than a real threat: just Horsemen instead of Battering Rams and Swordsmen instead of Bronze Infantry.

Originally posted by SlowThinker
Greek sub
...Maybe RobRoy and kengel could play collectively? RobRoy saw the map probably but it needn't be a problem since Greece is not in any conflict and is quite isolated.

I don't know about taking over a position, no matter how good, even in a shared capacity. Like I said before, I'm not sure I'd be a good long-term candidate. More importantly, perhaps, there are all the intangible frustrations that come with inheriting a position not of your creation. For example I'm particularly picky about city site placement. I'd be griding my teeth constantly because I'd want virtually every Greek city to be 1 or 2 tiles over. I'd be frustrated if my former selves had not been taking advantage of allowed exploits. And I'm liable to resent if any of my favorite exploits are disallowed.

Like I said, though, I'd be happy to sub for people on occassion, though I'd prefer to have some warning and instruction for the controlling player. And I HAVE looked at all of the civs in detail, so some players might have a legitimate objection to that. I probably wouldn't screw things up as much as the AI would. But if I were a long-term player, I might prefer an ally play me in my absence rather than some wild-card outsider who's liable to declare war on half the known world, for all I know.